This project attempts to bridge the gap between organizational theory and political rhetoric by approaching the study of the George W. Bush administration through the lens of Weick's theory of organizing. I specifically argue for the Bush administration as a tightly coupled system, as demonstrated by the media and the members of the administration themselves. Second, I argue for the constraining nature of the enacted environment through an analysis of the administration's position on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I find that Bush's decision to veto stem cell legislation in 2006 was a consequence of his identity as an Evangelical Christian and of his definition of what it means to be a leader. Finally, I argue for the importance of requisite variety in the administration's rhetorical constructions of the problems facing Social Security and the proposed methods of program reform. The administration's proposal demonstrates the necessity for a rhetorical "matching" between the construction of the problem and the construction of the solution. Finally, I turn to Crable and situate the findings within Crable's model of organizational rhetoric.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the George W. Bush administration became victims of groupthink when they made the policy decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Groupthink is a policy-making model which was first put forward by Irving Janis which attempts to explain how experienced and elite policy-makers can make decisions which lead to disastrous outcomes due to conditions which cause defective decision-making. Research was conducted through a qualitative, within case study which was made possible through the inherent process tracing method of the groupthink model. Mainly secondary sources which detailed the historical case of the decision to invade Iraq via journalists, outside researchers, and even the members of the administration were utilized in this investigation. The principle conclusion was that groupthink appeared to exist in the policy-making process of the Bush administration. This was reached after finding many of the antecedent conditions as well as the symptoms of groupthink in the Bush administration. Especially prominent were the occurrence of structural faults of the administration, mindguarding, self-censorship, and collective rationalizations. However, it is important to note that these results are sensitive to the discovery or release of new or contradictory evidence.

Thesis advisor: Marc Landy / This thesis serves to clarify and concretize the controversy surrounding the debate on torture as it pertains to the War on Terror during the Bush Administration years. It argues that policy and rhetoric decisions made at the top of the political food chain contributed to the instances of abuse and torture that occurred in the various arenas of the war (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and CIA “black sites”). Such an argument is made through an analysis of what defines interrogation and torture, what techniques were in fact authorized, what factors went into determining which techniques to use, and what influence these techniques had on abuses that occurred. This thesis concludes with policy updates based on lessons learned and briefly addresses the efforts made by the Obama Administration in regards to torture, interrogation, and terrorism. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science Honors Program. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: Political Science Honors.

The TV show is a central focus of American life, one that not only reflects but also produces social imaginaries for the American audience that support the way people interact and engage with reality. It is the nation’s most influential storyteller, which dominates the nation’s imagination and understanding of reality. This dissertation explores the political and cultural meanings of four TV shows from the George W. Bush era: The West Wing (1999-2007), Deadwood (2004-06), The Wire (2002-08) and Heroes (2006-10). In examining these TV shows, this dissertation aims to shed light on both the origins of the state of exception, its conduct, its purpose, and the possibility of meaningful critique of or resistance to the state of exception. Chapter I discusses The West Wing, focusing on President Bartlet’s decision-making process regarding the assassination of Abdul Shareef, so as to elucidate the decisive actions of a sovereign figure in a state of exception. Chapter II explores Deadwood’s resurrection of the nineteenth-century mining camp in our twenty-first century, in terms of the capitalist state of exception. In discussing the show’s portrayal of the conflicts among the main characters, this chapter reveals that the same sovereign logic of exception is innate in the expansion of capitalism. Chapter III examines The Wire’s depiction of rebellious petty-sovereigns such as Major Colvin, Detectives McNulty and Freamon. According to The Wire, the claims of equality are deeply urgent in the bleak reality of contemporary America. With their commitment to equality and justice, the petty-sovereigns intervene in the bleak reality in their subversive ways. Chapter IV explores Heroes’s rendering of the main characters’ struggles against a fictional national emergency, the Company’s conspiracy to blow up half of New York City. In this chapter, I argue that Heroes portrays a political subject that attempts to constitute itself outside biopolitical sovereign power—what Hardt and Negri would call the advent of the multitude. While explicating the struggles of the main characters, I argue that its limitation in envisioning a new world underscores how contemporary critics fail to see past sovereign politics when they imagine another world. / English

<p>The purpose of this study is twofold: First, to inquire how the George W. Bush administration plans to keep America safe from external threats and second – based on the assumption that neoconservatives have influenced the Bush administration – examine how neoconservative ideas have influenced this strategy to protect America. The research questions are as follows:</p><p>What is the content of the Bush administration’s security strategy?</p><p>How are neoconservative ideas reflected in this security strategy?</p><p>To answer the first question, the main points of two studied documents were summarized. The summarized documents were the two versions of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America that the George W Bush administration has released during its tenure. These documents state the official security strategy of the United States and give a general view over the threats against America and how the administration plans to deal with these threats. To answer the second question the author studied literature about neoconservatism and gained valuable knowledge about the neoconservatives, which resulted in the creation of an analyzing instrument. This analyzing instrument was later applied on the empirical material that was gathered by answering the first question and in turn answered the second question.</p><p>The result of the study is that the Bush administration believes that by spreading freedom and fighting tyranny around the world, America will become safer. To accomplish this, the administration will employ the full array of political, economic, diplomatic and other tools at their disposal. Neoconservative influences on the strategy were found repeatedly – one of the most obvious influences being the administration’s adoption of the principle of preemptive strikes against enemies.</p>

<p>Abstract</p><p>University of Växjö, School of Social Sciences</p><p>Course: POC 536, Political Science 41-60</p><p>Title: The U.S. military intervention in Iraq – A study of how the intervention corresponds with the UN Charter</p><p>Authors: Andreas Malmgren & Johan Schneider</p><p>Supervisor: Lennart Bergfeldt</p><p>Date: 2006-09-26</p><p>The aim of this essay is through a qualitative literature study examine the main arguments of the Bush administration to justify a military intervention in Iraq. The theories used to explain the actions of the U.S. are system level analysis, hegemonism and realism while the UN Charter will be applied as a normative theory. The research questions are:</p><p>■ What were the main arguments of the Bush administration for a military intervention in Iraq?</p><p>■ How do these arguments correspond to the UN Charter?</p><p>U.S. claimed that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons and this was threatening the security of the U.S. The administration also wanted to liberate the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. When the U.S. could not get support through the UN they decided to act independently.</p><p>According to the UN Charter, UN or its member states are not allowed to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state neither is it allowed to act with a pre-emptive purpose. An exceptional clausal exists if the Security Council decides it is a threat to peace or peace crimes. If a state act without the UN mandate this could undermine the UN authority.</p><p>Keywords: Weapon of mass destruction, intervention, Iraq, UN Charter, Bush administration</p>

No description available.

This study is an offensive realist comparative analysis of the drone policies used by the Bush administration and Obama administration during the Global War on Terror. The emergence of violent non-state actors have led to states having to develop new strategies for countering them. Drones were used by the United States in order to combat al-Qaeda, using new technologies in warfare to achieve this goal. This research addresses a gap by focusing on drone policies rather than the legality and morality of drone attacks or the effectiveness of drone strikes. This paper uses three offensive realist concepts; power maximisation, security maximisation and preventive warfare. The method used is a comparative analysis of the Bush administration, with the operationalisation of each concept. The findings of this research show that the drone policies used by each administration can be explained by the three offensive realist concepts. The Obama and Bush administrations prioritised power and security maximisation, while the Obama administration employed preventive drone strikes to a higher degree than the Bush administration. These findings are significant as offensive realism was able to explain the drone policies made by the United States during an asymmetric conflict.

Abstract University of Växjö, School of Social Sciences Course: POC 536, Political Science 41-60 Title: The U.S. military intervention in Iraq – A study of how the intervention corresponds with the UN Charter Authors: Andreas Malmgren &amp; Johan Schneider Supervisor: Lennart Bergfeldt Date: 2006-09-26 The aim of this essay is through a qualitative literature study examine the main arguments of the Bush administration to justify a military intervention in Iraq. The theories used to explain the actions of the U.S. are system level analysis, hegemonism and realism while the UN Charter will be applied as a normative theory. The research questions are: ■ What were the main arguments of the Bush administration for a military intervention in Iraq? ■ How do these arguments correspond to the UN Charter? U.S. claimed that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons and this was threatening the security of the U.S. The administration also wanted to liberate the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. When the U.S. could not get support through the UN they decided to act independently. According to the UN Charter, UN or its member states are not allowed to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state neither is it allowed to act with a pre-emptive purpose. An exceptional clausal exists if the Security Council decides it is a threat to peace or peace crimes. If a state act without the UN mandate this could undermine the UN authority. Keywords: Weapon of mass destruction, intervention, Iraq, UN Charter, Bush administration

The purpose of this study is twofold: First, to inquire how the George W. Bush administration plans to keep America safe from external threats and second – based on the assumption that neoconservatives have influenced the Bush administration – examine how neoconservative ideas have influenced this strategy to protect America. The research questions are as follows: What is the content of the Bush administration’s security strategy? How are neoconservative ideas reflected in this security strategy? To answer the first question, the main points of two studied documents were summarized. The summarized documents were the two versions of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America that the George W Bush administration has released during its tenure. These documents state the official security strategy of the United States and give a general view over the threats against America and how the administration plans to deal with these threats. To answer the second question the author studied literature about neoconservatism and gained valuable knowledge about the neoconservatives, which resulted in the creation of an analyzing instrument. This analyzing instrument was later applied on the empirical material that was gathered by answering the first question and in turn answered the second question. The result of the study is that the Bush administration believes that by spreading freedom and fighting tyranny around the world, America will become safer. To accomplish this, the administration will employ the full array of political, economic, diplomatic and other tools at their disposal. Neoconservative influences on the strategy were found repeatedly – one of the most obvious influences being the administration’s adoption of the principle of preemptive strikes against enemies.